Poll: is atheist organization politically oriented?
Yes - as organizations, atheists have a political agenda
No - as organizations, atheists are educators of truth
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Atheism is a political movement
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2011, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2011 03:49 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(09-06-2011 02:30 PM)Zach Wrote:  I understand and agree with what you're saying here. But doesn't this make a discussion of whether or not atheist groups is political pointless? My objection was that calling an organization political has no point, since unless I'm still confused you consider any organization political by definition.
The problem is atheists insist that their objectives are not political, but clearly, politics is their objective. Atheist organization is erroneous as an educational organization - they have no curriculum beyond discrediting religion, they have no school - they have nothing that would equate to our understanding of what is an educational organization, yet "education organization" is what they like to call themselves.

Atheists do not want "atheism" to be understood as a religion, or a political ideology - "atheism" is sacred to atheists, it has a particular meaning that is not to be misused. They believe the designations for religions and political interest groups is very particular, and "atheism," is not to be used for such designations - most atheists in America are still mad about the Know Nothings, because they cannot understand how a political movement can be called such, but they just blame it on the Pope and George Bush, and all is well in their minds. Atheists are very particular, they insist that the Democrats primary issue is to advocate for democracy governing systems and that they Republicans advocate for republic governing systems - atheists are very particular for orderliness in classification - they're like scientists with the word stuff - they think that if everything gets into perfect order it will make Christians smarter, and realize that there is no god and that atheists are just like them and should not be treated differently.

(09-06-2011 02:30 PM)Zach Wrote:  But we're arguing over semantics.
Yeah, it would be convenient if we had a standardized semantic classification system.

What do you understand atheist organization to be - what do you expect atheist organizations to do for atheists - what?

Education???
Celebrations of reason???
Or, do you expect atheist organizations to represent (support) atheists in the political environment?

(09-06-2011 02:30 PM)Zach Wrote:  (If I understand you) You are asserting that any organization can have political implications, and specifically mentioning atheist organizations as one of them. I don't think that these organizations require an agenda if they aren't very politically active. A discussion forum like this, for example, is probably intended as a casual place to debate or talk to other atheists about whatever one wants to talk about. But I agree that if they are political, they would want to have a clear agenda if they want to accomplish something. . . In response to your question, I don't believe any people or organizations should be prohibited from petitioning government. . .
Could you explain organizations being further defined? I'm not sure how I claim that can't be done. Or have I made myself more clear in the first part of my post?
You can designate an organization what you want - it still retains political legitamacy if you want to continue to allow it to be able to petition the government for sanctions. Your concept that rendering all organizations as having political legitimacy renders the term "political," as useless is wrong - it does not render the term useless. What you have done is because I am able to demonstrate that atheist organization is primarily political and that all organizations have political legitimacy, you have convoluted the two concepts to fulfill your quaky idea about the term political losing it's meaning.

Atheist organizations call themselves, "educational," yet they do nothing that would validate our understanding of an educational organization - if anything atheist organizations are rendering "education" as a useless designation. But you do not want see that because your focus is to be true to the mob-mentality that wants to see the organization as something other than a political organization.

I am arguing that atheist organizations only operate to serve a political function, but you cannot see that because you are apart of the mob-mentality that is afraid to recognize that atheist organizations are politically motivated, because that would mean that atheist organizations need to get better organized with a political agenda, and the problem is that atheists tend to be dull people and cannot construct an agenda, because they believe they have to reference atheism and religion in all of their issues instead of putting together an agenda based on the excellent sound reasoning skills that they claim to have.

Atheists are not afraid to tout themselves as critically thinking and reasoning of superiority to Christians, but when it comes to figuring out how to fix government, atheists take a back seat. Their only mantra is that if Christians would stop believing in god then fixing government would be inherent or something. I argue atheists need to get past their god obsessing and put their pretty reasonable heads together and construct a political agenda that they believe would serve all people justly - it's that simple. And I suggest you get on it, because I am, and I will do it, and it will put me at the top of the leadership board - you don't want that, so get to work. I'm only one person, and I know I can do it - I deliberated a scientific ordering of classification - I'm top dog.

(09-06-2011 02:30 PM)Zach Wrote:  And, just so we're on the same page, if the psychology major from the previous example created the organization with a broader purpose - helping other students deal with family issues, whatever they might be - would it still be considered political?
Every organization has political legitimacy, otherwise they would not be allowed to petition grievances or sanctions from the government, but they are going to have to get politically organized if they are going to petition the government, or solicit sanctions, otherwise we are not going to understand what they are doing - organizing the grievances is political organizing. The Psych club can call itself anything it wants, it still retains political legitimacy to petition the government. The club is not a political organization, it is the psycho-self-help club you wish it to be, because that is their primary function, but it still retains the ability to petition the government as a political interest. If you want to allow organizations the right to petition the government then you have to recognize that whatever their primary organizational concept is, they are also a political organization - doesn't that make sense?

How can atheist organizations petition the government if they are not politically motivated??? How can atheist organizations petition the government if they do not organize their grievances in an orderly manner???How can they organize their grievances in an orderly manner if they do not understand what the political system expects???

Aheist organizations are not legitimate education organizations - they're primary function as a service to their members is to petition the government the grievances of their atheist membership. The members of the atheist organizations do not rely on the atheist organization for education, they rely on the organization for political activism, unless of course you can describe and provide evidence to the contrary - can you provide such a validation?

Anything??? Can you show me evidence that atheist organizations have served the "atheist in foxholes?" Because I can provide you with evidence that they have failed to help them when they needed help.

(09-06-2011 02:30 PM)Zach Wrote:  It looked like you were arguing that being atheist makes an organization political, rather than the other qualities you explained that apply to any group. I don't see how making it atheist (or theist for that matter) automatically makes it political, but that wasn't your point.
Yeah - you are not too bright. You see, atheists do not rely on atheist organizations for anything other than political legitimacy. As an organized grouping the political legitimacy is stronger than the political legitimacy of the individual atheist. The individual atheist is not as strong as a group of well organized atheists.

Atheists do not seek atheist organization for anything other than stronger political legitimacy, it is their only source of representation - whiney-ass lobbying.

(09-06-2011 02:30 PM)Zach Wrote:  So (and I don't mean to oversimplify what you're doing) you're trying to come up with a more comprehensive replacement for the classification systems you described?
I have devised the initial generation of a scientific ordering of classification - it probably will develop into a very complete and comprehensive system.
(09-06-2011 02:30 PM)Zach Wrote:  I'm not really sure what I can say about it. I still don't understand what makes it as useful as you seem to think it is, but I don't want to go off-topic discussing it right now, although I am curious.
It is very high-tech stuff. I expected atheists to be interested in this stuff because of their seeming interest in science and philosophy, but it appears that their interest is very superficial.


(10-06-2011 11:50 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(10-06-2011 11:09 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I am different - I recognized that there was something wrong with society, and I decided that I was going to figure it out.
Right, and the answer is we have not classified ourselves properly. Got it.
As sarcastic as you wish to view it - that is true. Your belief that classification is irrelevant to social order is a mis-perception. I noticed that neither you, or anyone is willing to help Unbeliever over in the Philosophy thread - what's up? It's a very good example of what the lack of standardized classification has reaped - or do you think "love of wisdom," is a valid definition of philosophy?

Because classification is perceived to be irrelevant, we have failed to pursue the scientific ordering which would help us better understand society and the interrelationships of organizations and ideology, and their political legitimacy in a democratic-republic - which is definitely a problem in the atheist crowd.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2011, 06:45 PM
 
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(10-06-2011 11:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The problem is atheists insist that their objectives are not political, but clearly, politics is their objective. Atheist organization is erroneous as an educational organization - they have no curriculum beyond discrediting religion, they have no school - they have nothing that would equate to our understanding of what is an educational organization, yet "education organization" is what they like to call themselves.

Atheists do not want "atheism" to be understood as a religion, or a political ideology - "atheism" is sacred to atheists, it has a particular meaning that is not to be misused. They believe the designations for religions and political interest groups is very particular, and "atheism," is not to be used for such designations - most atheists in America are still mad about the Know Nothings, because they cannot understand how a political movement can be called such, but they just blame it on the Pope and George Bush, and all is well in their minds. Atheists are very particular, they insist that the Democrats primary issue is to advocate for democracy governing systems and that they Republicans advocate for republic governing systems - atheists are very particular for orderliness in classification - they're like scientists with the word stuff - they think that if everything gets into perfect order it will make Christians smarter, and realize that there is no god and that atheists are just like them and should not be treated differently.

You're making a huge generalization here, and seem to be changing the discussion from whether an organization has the ability to petition the government or otherwise become involved in politics, which I don't dispute, to claiming that atheist organizations are created for the primary purpose of engaging in politics. The second claim is, again, what I disagreed with and thought you were claiming, and my earlier example did not have political objectives. Neither does this forum IMO, the purpose seems to be casual discussion of religion and other topics, and a place to meet like-minded people.

(10-06-2011 11:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Yeah, it would be convenient if we had a standardized semantic classification system.

What do you understand atheist organization to be - what do you expect atheist organizations to do for atheists - what?

Education???
Celebrations of reason???
Or, do you expect atheist organizations to represent (support) atheists in the political environment?

Or if we just define our terms more clearly when it becomes apparent we're using different definitions. I understand an organization to be a group of people who meet or communicate regularly for a specific purpose. If I were to describe an organization as political, then that group's purpose would be to involve itself in politics in some way.

Using those definitions, an atheist organization is a group of atheists who meet or communicate regularly, and we'll assume their purpose is related to atheism, so it could be dealing with family issues, discussion of various religions and problems inherent in them, or perhaps discussion of more complex topics such as morality without the handicap of "absolute morals" and other absurdities.

A political atheist organizations would be more apt to monitor legal issues regarding separation of church and state or combat public ignorance on evolution and other topics distorted by theists(not necessarily political, but it is activism and will likely be interested in any legal conflicts over these issues). Perhaps petition the government for laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of personal beliefs, although I disagree with that kind of legislation I imagine many other atheists may not.

(10-06-2011 11:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You can designate an organization what you want - it still retains political legitamacy if you want to continue to allow it to be able to petition the government for sanctions. Your concept that rendering all organizations as having political legitimacy renders the term "political," as useless is wrong - it does not render the term useless. What you have done is because I am able to demonstrate that atheist organization is primarily political and that all organizations have political legitimacy, you have convoluted the two concepts to fulfill your quaky idea about the term political losing it's meaning.
(10-06-2011 11:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Atheist organizations call themselves, "educational," yet they do nothing that would validate our understanding of an educational organization - if anything atheist organizations are rendering "education" as a useless designation. But you do not want see that because your focus is to be true to the mob-mentality that wants to see the organization as something other than a political organization.

No, you have demonstrated that every organization is political by definition (Or the one you're using). If that is the case, then calling an organization political is pointless; the adjective "political" adds no information to the noun "organization" when the definition of organization includes political. But once again, this is semantics, not me trying to deny that any atheist organization could become involved in politics because it obviously can and many of them do.

(10-06-2011 11:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I am arguing that atheist organizations only operate to serve a political function, but you cannot see that because you are apart of the mob-mentality that is afraid to recognize that atheist organizations are politically motivated, because that would mean that atheist organizations need to get better organized with a political agenda, and the problem is that atheists tend to be dull people and cannot construct an agenda, because they believe they have to reference atheism and religion in all of their issues instead of putting together an agenda based on the excellent sound reasoning skills that they claim to have.

I have no problem with the fact that many atheist organizations are created to engage in political activism, and they can organize their agendas. But I disagree that the purpose of every atheist organization is to engage in politics, as I've already stated. Trying to assert that anyone who disagrees with you is motivated by fear or laziness does not help the discussion.

(10-06-2011 11:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Atheists are not afraid to tout themselves as critically thinking and reasoning of superiority to Christians, but when it comes to figuring out how to fix government, atheists take a back seat. Their only mantra is that if Christians would stop believing in god then fixing government would be inherent or something. I argue atheists need to get past their god obsessing and put their pretty reasonable heads together and construct a political agenda that they believe would serve all people justly - it's that simple. And I suggest you get on it, because I am, and I will do it, and it will put me at the top of the leadership board - you don't want that, so get to work. I'm only one person, and I know I can do it - I deliberated a scientific ordering of classification - I'm top dog.

How does your classification system fix anything? Many atheists are politically active, and many are not. Sweeping generalizations are not helpful.

(10-06-2011 11:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Every organization has political legitimacy, otherwise they would not be allowed to petition grievances or sanctions from the government, but they are going to have to get politically organized if they are going to petition the government, or solicit sanctions, otherwise we are not going to understand what they are doing - organizing the grievances is political organizing. The Psych club can call itself anything it wants, it still retains political legitimacy to petition the government. The club is not a political organization, it is the psycho-self-help club you wish it to be, because that is their primary function, but it still retains the ability to petition the government as a political interest. If you want to allow organizations the right to petition the government then you have to recognize that whatever their primary organizational concept is, they are also a political organization - doesn't that make sense?

How can atheist organizations petition the government if they are not politically motivated??? How can atheist organizations petition the government if they do not organize their grievances in an orderly manner???How can they organize their grievances in an orderly manner if they do not understand what the political system expects???

Aheist organizations are not legitimate education organizations - they're primary function as a service to their members is to petition the government the grievances of their atheist membership. The members of the atheist organizations do not rely on the atheist organization for education, they rely on the organization for political activism, unless of course you can describe and provide evidence to the contrary - can you provide such a validation?

Is this forum not an atheist organization? I think most of the people who post here, myself included, do it to talk about religious issues with other atheists. There is no political activism involved, no political motivation.

I don't care whether atheist organizations that I'm not a part of and have no interest in have political or non-political agendas, have a shitty agenda or a clearly defined agenda, and are helping other atheists or accomplishing nothing with their time. Atheism is not a cohesive political group on its own, and a discussion of atheist political agenda should be specific to one atheist organization. If you want to talk about a specific atheist organization and their agenda, then I would do so within that organization. If you want to talk about this website's agenda, I don't see the point since it doesn't need one aside from discussion of atheism, theism, and religion. If you want to talk about the concept of atheism and whether it is political or needs an agenda, I'm not interested because such generalizations are worthless.

You can take the above paragraph and replace atheist and atheism with any race, religious creed(that doesn't require all of its members to have a particular set of political views), sexual preference, sex, or nationality and I would still agree with it. Theists need no political agenda, blacks need none, men need none, Americans need none, and atheists need none. Specific organizations that represent theists, atheists, whites, blacks, Americans, men, women, etc. may want an agenda, but unless I have an interest in that organization I don't see why I would care to discuss an agenda for it.

Any political organization that I involve myself in would not be purely atheist because most of my views are shared by at least some theists and not all atheists. When not arguing over the truth or validity of their religion, many theists can be very intelligent, logical people. As long as they aren't interested in bringing religion into politics then chances are I share many political views with them.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Zach's post
11-06-2011, 09:46 AM
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(10-06-2011 11:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  As sarcastic as you wish to view it - that is true. Your belief that classification is irrelevant to social order is a mis-perception. I noticed that neither you, or anyone is willing to help Unbeliever over in the Philosophy thread - what's up? It's a very good example of what the lack of standardized classification has reaped - or do you think "love of wisdom," is a valid definition of philosophy?

I can't speak for anyone else but the reason I did nohelp Unbeliever is because I never even read the thread. I don't read every post or thread on this board, just the ones that interest me early on. But, having cluttered my life and my thinking with the various responsibilities that come with a wife, kids and a job, the counter balance is I don't always have time to just hang around the internet.

Take right now, for example. Right now I need to get off the internet and vacuum the whole house. And, you will be pleased to know that I've actually taken the time to classify this particular activity. I put it in the category of "suck ass" and classify it as "drudgery".

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
12-06-2011, 05:45 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2011 10:31 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Atheism is a political movement
Yes, but that is a personal classification - not a scientific classification. A scientific classification is something we all recognize, or accept from authority, as being true and consistent; and in the example you have offered, the activity would fall under something such as housework in a standardized system. It is true that even without a standardized classification we usually get the classification correct, especially in areas of very common understanding; but in other areas, less common, we begin to encounter errors in the comparisons of individuals' personal classifications, and in many instances when we recognize the differences we tend to interpret those individuals as having deficient educations. And I am very certain that in your career you have encountered unique situations that would be consistent with such problems.

If we had a standardized classification system we could greatly improve the efficiency of education.

I am pretty sure you are not against improving classification for society, it's just that you recognize that you have no learned background in the field, and you do not want to commit to promoting a product that may not be what it is promoted as and that would be embarrassing to your commercial integrity - right?

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  You're making a huge generalization here, and seem to be changing the discussion from whether an organization has the ability to petition the government or otherwise become involved in politics, which I don't dispute, to claiming that atheist organizations are created for the primary purpose of engaging in politics.
Yes, that would be consistent with what my argument for this thread is - atheist organizations are formed to meet the members demands for representative-lobbying efforts. The designation as "educational," is a ploy for providing tax exemption for the members.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  The second claim is, again, what I disagreed with and thought you were claiming, and my earlier example did not have political objectives. Neither does this forum IMO, the purpose seems to be casual discussion of religion and other topics, and a place to meet like-minded people.
Such discussions are kind of silly. I assure you all discussion concerning theist religions are doomed to be pointless, because theist religions are inherently logically erroneous - unless, of course, you can identify a theist religion that has been proven to be worthy of logical consistency.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  
(10-06-2011 11:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Yeah, it would be convenient if we had a standardized semantic classification system.
Or if we just define our terms more clearly when it becomes apparent we're using different definitions.
Waste of time, because if our definitions are different, then our arguments are going to be moot, because our arguments are going to be misaligned because they are predicated on the different definitions.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  I understand an organization to be a group of people who meet or communicate regularly for a specific purpose. If I were to describe an organization as political, then that group's purpose would be to involve itself in politics in some way.

Using those definitions, an atheist organization is a group of atheists who meet or communicate regularly, and we'll assume their purpose is related to atheism, so it could be dealing with family issues, discussion of various religions and problems inherent in them, or perhaps discussion of more complex topics such as morality without the handicap of "absolute morals" and other absurdities.
I have a problem with your claim that purposes related to atheism include all of those issues, because atheists claim that atheism has only one component, and so how could such discussions lead to any conclusion? You cannot count on atheists to offer an opinion that is consistent to any philosophical logic system, because atheists make no attempt to concentrate any logic to its extended inferences. All of which is what makes-up the aspect of an organization that you are lacking in your definition - there basically needs to be a product. Businesses have well defined products and the employees are charged with having to uphold the integrity of the product; and in the case of atheists just discussing issues, there is no guarantee that the arguments are correctly critiqued, because there is no standard by which to judge - except to say that the issue is approached from the predicate that there is no theist organized standard by which to judge, and other than that every atheist has the possibility of offering a different approach.

I personally disagree with the idea that atheists are all a bunch of different snow flakes, but as long as atheist continue to make such a claim and fail to organize logic and moralities (factions of atheism), there is no way to believe that anything that is said by atheists is reliable - It is a mess.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  A political atheist organizations would be more apt to monitor legal issues regarding separation of church and state or combat public ignorance on evolution and other topics distorted by theists(not necessarily political, but it is activism and will likely be interested in any legal conflicts over these issues). Perhaps petition the government for laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of personal beliefs, although I disagree with that kind of legislation I imagine many other atheists may not.
And that is what atheist organizations do.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  No, you have demonstrated that every organization is political by definition (Or the one you're using).
No, because it is what the organizations do, it is not how atheist organizations describe themselves to the public. The atheist organizations claim they are educational organizations, but nobody seeks atheists for education, and atheist seek atheist organizations for political activity.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  If that is the case, then calling an organization political is pointless; the adjective "political" adds no information to the noun "organization" when the definition of organization includes political.
I am calling atheist organizations, "political," because that is what they do, and atheists need to recognize that, because atheist organizations do not do what atheists believe they do. Atheists do not go to atheist organizations for advice about religion, because atheist organizations do not provide it.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  But once again, this is semantics, not me trying to deny that any atheist organization could become involved in politics because it obviously can and many of them do.
They all do - they all petition the government on the behalf of their membership, because their membership expects the organizations to do so.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  I have no problem with the fact that many atheist organizations are created to engage in political activism, and they can organize their agendas. But I disagree that the purpose of every atheist organization is to engage in politics, as I've already stated. Trying to assert that anyone who disagrees with you is motivated by fear or laziness does not help the discussion.
I'll agree that every atheist organization claims to not be politically motivated, in fact what they do claim is that they are motivated to educate, but they fail in that regard, because nobody seeks atheist organization to learn about anything, and nor will they learn anything comprehensive from atheist organization - ask the American Atheists about religions, it will be a three minute conversation.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  How does your classification system fix anything?
A scientific ordering of knowledge will be used as a reference similar to how a dictionary is used as a reference, but it will be stricter - formal definitions only. This in turn, benefits our arguments.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  Many atheists are politically active, and many are not. Sweeping generalizations are not helpful.
It does not matter, those who are not politically active are irrelevant, but I am confident they have political arguments, and chances are they are just as erroneous as the political arguments the active atheists have.

Not all Republicans are politically active, and not all Democrats are politically active; and of them both, not all members completely agree with the parties' agendas - It's a big mixed-up bag. And there is no reason to expect that all atheists are to agree with a political agenda devised by the atheists' elite intellectual leadership. The political agenda is merely a guide that unites the factions (somewhat undefined at this time) for the ultimate goal of dismantling theism. It is not much different then the ultimate goal of the Republicans and Democrats who's agendas are to unite their factions to dismantle other political agendas - it is absurd to believe that political parties appreciate opposing political agendas.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  Is this forum not an atheist organization? I think most of the people who post here, myself included, do it to talk about religious issues with other atheists. There is no political activism involved, no political motivation.
As they are, such Internet forums do not qualify as organizations, other than the administration, which has a definite purpose to maintain and (perpetuate) the forum. The participants are not concerned about the community interacting with other "organizations." In most cases, the participants are only concerned about what they can get out of the discussions (the product provided by the administration) for themselves with very little concern about the other participants, or presenting their "organization" as useful to others - are members promoting TTA? Probably not, because the members recognize the "product" as abstruse.

The only possible aspect of simulating organization that such forums produce is in the form of ganging-up on a participant that does not conform with the gang's semi-organized agenda. The problem, again, is that the semi-organized agenda is not fully organized otherwise it would be formalized in an explicit agreement. In the case of this discussion, there would need to be a formal and explicit agreement, or rule, demanding that atheist organizations cannot be considered or argued as being political activities, because such arguments violates the forum's construct of logic - which is going to be much more complete. As it is, this forum is very general, probably to attract as many members as possible - tightening up the rules and logic philosophy is a discriminating exercise.

(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  I don't care whether atheist organizations that I'm not a part of and have no interest in have political or non-political agendas, have a shitty agenda or a clearly defined agenda, and are helping other atheists or accomplishing nothing with their time.
That is probably typical, because if atheists were concerned, they would recognize that atheist organizations are very poor examples of education organizations, and are better at political activism.
(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  Atheism is not a cohesive political group on its own, . . .
Atheism is more cohesive about political activism then it is about anything else, though.
(10-06-2011 06:45 PM)Zach Wrote:  . . . and a discussion of atheist political agenda should be specific to one atheist organization. If you want to talk about a specific atheist organization and their agenda, then I would do so within that organization. If you want to talk about this website's agenda, I don't see the point since it doesn't need one aside from discussion of atheism, theism, and religion. If you want to talk about the concept of atheism and whether it is political or needs an agenda, I'm not interested because such generalizations are worthless.

You can take the above paragraph and replace atheist and atheism with any race, religious creed (that doesn't require all of its members to have a particular set of political views), sexual preference, sex, or nationality and I would still agree with it. Theists need no political agenda, blacks need none, men need none, Americans need none, and atheists need none. Specific organizations that represent theists, atheists, whites, blacks, Americans, men, women, etc. may want an agenda, but unless I have an interest in that organization I don't see why I would care to discuss an agenda for it.

Any political organization that I involve myself in would not be purely atheist because most of my views are shared by at least some theists and not all atheists. When not arguing over the truth or validity of their religion, many theists can be very intelligent, logical people. As long as they aren't interested in bringing religion into politics then chances are I share many political views with them.

You are playing both sides of the coin - for some reason you expect a political organization designated "(atheist)," to be true for all; whereas, any political, racial, gender, or cultural, organization you recognize as being diverse???

Don't worry, you will not be called upon to make the major decisions - you just need to realize that atheist organizations are primarily political activism and not educational.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2011, 06:55 PM
RE: Atheism is a political movement
UGH. I.... Uh forget about it brickwall...

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like lucradis's post
13-06-2011, 10:14 AM
 
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(12-06-2011 05:45 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You are playing both sides of the coin - for some reason you expect a political organization designated "(atheist)," to be true for all; whereas, any political, racial, gender, or cultural, organization you recognize as being diverse???

What I'm saying is that coming up with an atheist agenda is as pointless as coming up with a white agenda, a homosexual agenda, a theist agenda, or a female agenda. There is a point to come up with an agenda for a specific activist group tackling issues related to any of these groups of people, but not for those categories of people as a whole. If you want to discuss agendas for specific groups, then I see no point in doing it here unless people are interested in that.

I acknowledge that many if not the majority of atheist organizations are political, but atheism and all atheist organizations are not inherently political. That still doesn't tell us anything, and it doesn't mean we need some sort of agenda for all atheists.

As for discussions on a forum like this being silly, that's your opinion. I think most people here feel they get something out of it though, and that's the point.

I hope you'll forgive me for not replying to every sentence in your post, since at the rate we're both going a single post from either of us will be a short novel before too long Tongue

If there's a particular point that's important and that you think I should still be addressing, tell me, but there's no way I'm going to continue making giant posts like my last one.
Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2011, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2011 11:10 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Atheism is a political movement
By the way, you guys need to give Stark Raving some more reputation marks - I have now exceeded him in attention by two, so I will give him one for good showing.

Thank you all, very much for making my dreams come true.
(13-06-2011 10:14 AM)Zach Wrote:  What I'm saying is that coming up with an atheist agenda is as pointless as coming up with a white agenda, a homosexual agenda, a theist agenda, or a female agenda. There is a point to come up with an agenda for a specific activist group tackling issues related to any of these groups of people, but not for those categories of people as a whole. If you want to discuss agendas for specific groups, then I see no point in doing it here unless people are interested in that.
Devising a political agenda is a step in maturation of "atheism."

You see, one of the problems with the designation, "atheism," is that it is relative to the existence of theism; and Sam Harris has made the argument, as well. I argue that it is faulty because in several centuries from now, when theism is dismantled, the designation for the ontological category of thinking will probably be humanism - so why don't we get their now? Now, if the term atheism is relative to the existence of theism, then understanding atheism as a political agenda is less abstruse, because theists see atheists as having an overall agenda to dismantle theism no matter how hard you try to convince them that atheists want to live in some kind of harmony with theists - the theists are not going to believe it.

The devising of a political agenda designated, "atheism," is appropriate, because it signifies the ambition and people involved. You are probably having difficulty understanding that the agenda does not have to accommodate atheists exclusively. As with any political organization, the ambition is to treat all people justly, with the claim that those who subscribe to the political agenda are more apt to be able to serve all people more justly.

Republicans are not inclined to submit to Democrats, just as Democrats are not inclined to submit to Republicans, because the principles of thought for serving all people justly must be protected by defeating the opposing ideology because it is relatively erroneous.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrainWreck's post
13-06-2011, 12:09 PM
 
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(13-06-2011 10:34 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Devising a political agenda is a step in maturation of "atheism."

You see, one of the problems with the designation, "atheism," is that it is relative to the existence of theism; and Sam Harris has made the argument, as well. I argue that it is faulty because in several centuries from now, when theism is dismantled, the designation for the ontological category of thinking will probably be humanism - so why don't we get their now? Now, if the term atheism is relative to the existence of theism, then understanding atheism as a political agenda is less abstruse, because theists see atheists as having an overall agenda to dismantle theism no matter how hard you try to convince them that atheists want to live in some kind of harmony with theists - the theists are not going to believe it.

The devising of a political agenda designated, "atheism," is appropriate, because it signifies the ambition and people involved. You are probably having difficulty understanding that the agenda does not have to accommodate atheists exclusively. As with any political organization, the ambition is to treat all people justly, with the claim that those who subscribe to the political agenda are more apt to be able to serve all people more justly.

Republicans are not inclined to submit to Democrats, just as Democrats are not inclined to submit to Republicans, because the principles of thought for serving all people justly must be protected by defeating the opposing ideology because it is relatively erroneous.

I think you've explained your position very well with this post, and when you put it that way a lot of my objections don't really apply. I'm still not sure I agree with you, but you definitely do have a good point.

There's not much else I can add to the discussion, so I suppose I'll leave it at that.
Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2011, 12:58 PM
RE: Atheism is a political movement
Hey I get it now too! very nice explanation Trainwreck. Really sums up your reasoning I think. Hey look at that I actually sort of agree with you too, who would have thought.

I don't know how important it is that the two groups actually separate but I can see why one would want that. I can see why you are creating a new classification system as well. Good luck with that. But a point on that... if you try to sell it elsewhere start with the last post you made and go from there lol.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2011, 01:05 PM
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(13-06-2011 10:34 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You see, one of the problems with the designation, "atheism," is that it is relative to the existence of theism; and Sam Harris has made the argument, as well. I argue that it is faulty because in several centuries from now, when theism is dismantled, the designation for the ontological category of thinking will probably be humanism - so why don't we get their now? Now, if the term atheism is relative to the existence of theism, then understanding atheism as a political agenda is less abstruse, because theists see atheists as having an overall agenda to dismantle theism no matter how hard you try to convince them that atheists want to live in some kind of harmony with theists - the theists are not going to believe it.

So there needs to be some big plan... because the theists think there is a plan?
Sorry I think I'll stick with the socialists.

(13-06-2011 10:34 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The devising of a political agenda designated, "atheism," is appropriate, because it signifies the ambition and people involved. You are probably having difficulty understanding that the agenda does not have to accommodate atheists exclusively. As with any political organization, the ambition is to treat all people justly, with the claim that those who subscribe to the political agenda are more apt to be able to serve all people more justly.

So its a political group for atheists... thats actually for everyone... why does it have to be atheism then? by that reasoning you could choose a name out of a hat and brand it as a political group for everyone.

(13-06-2011 10:34 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Republicans are not inclined to submit to Democrats, just as Democrats are not inclined to submit to Republicans, because the principles of thought for serving all people justly must be protected by defeating the opposing ideology because it is relatively erroneous.

Why does the opposing ideology need to be defeated? seems to me societies can work well with many different ideologies, so long as people are educated enough to think things through first. Whites are also not inclined to submit to blacks, and blacks aren't inclined to submit to whites, that's the constitution for you.

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: